Its "WTF? We are playing Star Wars. You are supposed to be a good guy hero. Good guys don't do stuff like that. Either (a) come up with a different action, (b) make up a new character who won't act like that, or (c) don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on your way out.

I tend to allow my players to play however they want. They don't have to feel railroaded into playing something I think that they should play.

As GM, I'm there to provide consequences.

I believe in GM as god, but I also believe that player characters have been given free will.

Exactly. The only time i will tell them "No you can't" is if i find them using metaknowledge..
If they want to not act heroic, then they get a DSP.._________________It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.

Some PC behavior is outside the bounds of what we agreed to play. That's an out of game issue and the way to address that is to talk to the player not to try to use in game mechanics and consequences to punish or try to train them to play some other way. What's an example of outside the bounds?

Example 1: In the campaign set up we agreed to play Rebels members of Alliance. A game or two in, one player we'll call him John Wick, decides for no apparent reason that he wants his character to immediately desert and join Black Sun as a bounty hunter-assassin. The other players want to play Rebels. Like we agreed. Sure we could change the game from playing Rebels to everybody hunts down John Wick's character after he deserts, but that still doesn't give the other players or the GM the game they wanted. Better by far to say - "Hey John, WTF? Did you forget we all agreed that this was going to be a Rebels campaign? Now stop pissing on everyone's parade and play the game you signed up for or hit the sidewalk."

On the other hand, in game mechanics like DSPs are used to address in game issues.

Example 2: Another player, let's call them Josey, is playing an Outlaw character who now works for the Alliance. Josey decides that the Outlaw will torture a local policeman to get the code to unlock the cells in the detention center. The Outlaw is still a Rebel, but he's an evil Rebel. But we didn't decide ahead of time that in this campaign all the Rebels have to have hearts of gold, so that behavior is still in bound. Unless the other characters stop the Outlaw, he tortures the security guard. "Here Josey have a DSP."

In game consequences are the result of in game actions.

Example 3: The local police find the body of their brutally tortured comrade. The local police are angry. The want vengeance. Despite orders from above to capture the Rebels they will shoot the PCs on sight. That's a consequence.

Some PC behavior is outside the bounds of what we agreed to play. That's an out of game issue and the way to address that is to talk to the player not to try to use in game mechanics and consequences to punish or try to train them to play some other way. What's an example of outside the bounds?

Example 1: In the campaign set up we agreed to play Rebels members of Alliance. A game or two in, one player we'll call him John Wick, decides for no apparent reason that he wants his character to immediately desert and join Black Sun as a bounty hunter-assassin. The other players want to play Rebels. Like we agreed. Sure we could change the game from playing Rebels to everybody hunts down John Wick's character after he deserts, but that still doesn't give the other players or the GM the game they wanted. Better by far to say - "Hey John, WTF? Did you forget we all agreed that this was going to be a Rebels campaign? Now stop pissing on everyone's parade and play the game you signed up for or hit the sidewalk."

On the other hand, in game mechanics like DSPs are used to address in game issues.

Example 2: Another player, let's call them Josey, is playing an Outlaw character who now works for the Alliance. Josey decides that the Outlaw will torture a local policeman to get the code to unlock the cells in the detention center. The Outlaw is still a Rebel, but he's an evil Rebel. But we didn't decide ahead of time that in this campaign all the Rebels have to have hearts of gold, so that behavior is still in bound. Unless the other characters stop the Outlaw, he tortures the security guard. "Here Josey have a DSP."

In game consequences are the result of in game actions.

Example 3: The local police find the body of their brutally tortured comrade. The local police are angry. The want vengeance. Despite orders from above to capture the Rebels they will shoot the PCs on sight. That's a consequence.

This. These examples illustrate perfectly what is and isn't appropriate behavior towards your fellow gamers. Examples 2 and 3 are illustrations of the in-universe consequences that befall characters for dumb or bad decisions. Example 1 affects the players and the real world gameplay which makes the game no longer fun to play. That's why it's much more serious and needs to be dealt with responsibly._________________Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.

Example 1: In the campaign set up we agreed to play Rebels members of Alliance. A game or two in, one player we'll call him John Wick, decides for no apparent reason that he wants his character to immediately desert and join Black Sun as a bounty hunter-assassin.

I'd try to find a way to allow the player to do what he wants AND still have the others play Rebels.

This may lead to the player losing the character, or it may lead to the player not seeing a lot of play in the game due to the fact that we're spending most of the time playing the Rebels as we all agreed to play in the first place.

It depends on the situation and the story.

Maybe I could work something to where all players are happy. I'd sure try to do that. Maybe the John Wick becomes a contact within Black Sun for the Rebels. And, in enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend-style, Black Sun works with the Alliance on a mutual goal. Then that becomes the game.

Or...

Maybe I work with the player playing John Wick and keep his involvement with Black Sun a secret. He's playing a spy within the ranks of the Alliance. I've done this kind of thing before, and it can be damn fun.

There are other ideas, I'm sure, to keep the game interesting with everybody happy. But, if I can't seem to find that, then the majority will eventually win out, and the Wick character may become an NPC bad guy.

Example 1: In the campaign set up we agreed to play Rebels members of Alliance. A game or two in, one player we'll call him John Wick, decides for no apparent reason that he wants his character to immediately desert and join Black Sun as a bounty hunter-assassin.

I'd try to find a way to allow the player to do what he wants AND still have the others play Rebels.

Your game, your choice. To me it seems like a waste of my time and the other players' time to accommodate some special snowflake who can't or won't get with the program, get along with everyone else, and play what we all agreed to play.

Its like that guy who shows up and always wants to play an axe-wielding dwarf in every single game. Not just a short guy with a woodaxe, but an actual, chainmail wearing D&D dwarf. "No cupcake there are no D&D dwarfs in Call of Cthulhu." I'm way too old and cranky to put with that sort of self-absorbed behavior in my free time.

Example 1: In the campaign set up we agreed to play Rebels members of Alliance. A game or two in, one player we'll call him John Wick, decides for no apparent reason that he wants his character to immediately desert and join Black Sun as a bounty hunter-assassin. The other players want to play Rebels.

I wouldn't call that being out of bounds though. First off, the DM is the one setting the stage, so it's fully in his bounds to limit things like say "I am running a 1 yr after order 66 game, so there are no jedi right now", and tell a player "sorry bub, but i said jedi were not allowed, so no you can't play a minor jedi/quixotic one.."

Secondly, iirc black sun was NOT that well known, even into the esb time frame to general folk, so that player needs to justify WHY/HOW his pc would even know of them to wanna go rogue and join them.

And if he really wanted to do that, no matter what i said. FINE your pc is now a NPC.. make up a new one._________________It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.

I think you are agreeing with my notion of boundaries while perhaps debating nomenclature. Both your first and third examples ("sorry bub, but i said jedi were not allowed" and "FINE your pc is now a NPC") are what I call keeping the players within the agreed boundaries.

1. Our group are used to handling weird characters with different morals. Sure, the Jedi (or other goody two shoes characters) wont hang out with murderers, the there usually is range of morals with a lot of grey scale.

Someone suddenly turning traitor wont force the group to change the game, but leave the party and perhaps become a reoccuring bad guy (Happened in an AD&D game years and years back. Funny thing is that the original player got to play the NPC at those moments which made it very challenging).

Back to DSP.
Ive been away from here so I reintroduce 'Dark Side Pips'.
Which are just like pips are to skill dice. Small increments of a DSP.
When you get a DSPip you roll a D6. On a 1 you will get a full DSP. When you get your last DSPip you get a DSP on a 1-2. Your third DSPip is automatically a Dark Side Point.

Also, Dark Side Points do have an effect on non force-sensitive characters, with the Will of the Dark Side, which may alter their actions at dramatic situations where their lives balance vs the lives of others.

For example, a 3 DSP Bounty Hunter is holding a thermal while the stormtroopers come storming down the crowded alley. Throwing the detonator will surely kill both stormtroopers and several innocents alike. The GM (Me) suddenly calls for a Willpower test, vs the number of DSP:s x D6. Failure will mean the Bounty Hunter sacrifices the innocents to protect his own life.

I know this isnt the House Rules part, but the RAW are so blunt so they are hardly playable.

I remember Dark Side pips. I thought that was a good idea. One reason being that it allows more granularity so lesser instances of fear, anger, vengeance, etc. can give a pip so we can save a whole point for larger events.

I didn't remember the rolling to see if a pip turns into a point though. Why not just track the pips like we do for stats and skills?

I remember Dark Side pips. I thought that was a good idea. One reason being that it allows more granularity so lesser instances of fear, anger, vengeance, etc. can give a pip so we can save a whole point for larger events.

I didn't remember the rolling to see if a pip turns into a point though. Why not just track the pips like we do for stats and skills?

Yeah, maybe the rolling part was a trick of my memory.. Or how I would make it today, ie no certainty even if the risk is low.._________________My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..

It makes me wonder who on this site, has adapted those rules for their game, and how did it turn out?_________________It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.

I tend to be of the opinion that you don't need to spend FP to get DSP, but I would say spending a FP turns a corner case into an actuality.

Let's use an example from an actual game. Rodian Jedi, trying to cut down a fence with his lightsaber... should be easy, but he. keeps. failing. Again and again. Player is getting mad at how horrible his dice are going, and finally says "FINE! I spend a Force Point!"

Now, had he cut down the fence, even angry, I wouldn't have given him a DSP. It's not a great thing to do, but, you know, it happens. But spending a Force Point in anger means that a corner case gets turned into a flat-of-the-wall case._________________"I’m telling you, you’ll never have a deeper sleep than curled up in a Wookie’s lap."
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/

I tend to be of the opinion that you don't need to spend FP to get DSP, but I would say spending a FP turns a corner case into an actuality.

I agree.

Quote:

Let's use an example from an actual game. Rodian Jedi, trying to cut down a fence with his lightsaber... should be easy, but he. keeps. failing. Again and again. Player is getting mad at how horrible his dice are going, and finally says "FINE! I spend a Force Point!"

Now, had he cut down the fence, even angry, I wouldn't have given him a DSP. It's not a great thing to do, but, you know, it happens. But spending a Force Point in anger means that a corner case gets turned into a flat-of-the-wall case.

As a GM I'm not really comfortable interpreting the irritation I hear in the player's voice as automatically indicating that their character is using the Force in anger.

If I were going to do something like that I'd be more comfortable if

a) The player said that their character was using the Force in anger.
b) The character failed a Willpower rule to avoid using the Force in anger.
c) I handed out 1 Dark Side pip instead of a full point.
d) Two or more of the above.